Tapeworm 169 Posted July 20, 2015 The thing that intrigues me about Dimitri's alleged statement is its eloquence.......... from a young Frenchman whose command of the English language, when being interviewed, was even more basic than my schoolboy French. It even includes colloquialisms like "washing dirty laundry". I wonder who wrote it for him, whether it was a straight translation of his own words, and even whether he fully understood what it says. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SharpenRake 1,514 Posted July 20, 2015 Perhaps Dimitri was asked to withhold his services, and didn't take it too kindly, understandably. Others have commented on this but I'd ask Blackadder: Berge asked to leave the club, yes?; even you must agree that they are not going to sack a rider when there is no obvious replacement. So how about this as a theory, perhaps having asked to leave the club tried to persuade him to stay before reluctantly saying he could go. In these circumstances berge is presumably withholding his services and that means a ban from racing? maybe he thought he could just leave and join his mate and then got annoyed like most teenagers when they don't get their own way? Whatever theory is correct Glasgow own him and will get a loan fee or transfer fee or did his advisors not mention that either. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ekimba 319 Posted July 20, 2015 The thing that intrigues me about Dimitri's alleged statement is its eloquence.......... from a young Frenchman whose command of the English language, when being interviewed, was even more basic than my schoolboy French. It even includes colloquialisms like "washing dirty laundry". I wonder who wrote it for him, whether it was a straight translation of his own words, and even whether he fully understood what it says. I think Spinny wrote it for him 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Countershaftcounter 360 Posted July 20, 2015 Pssst. They have English speakers in France Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Blackadder 280 Posted July 20, 2015 Others have commented on this but I'd ask Blackadder: Berge asked to leave the club, yes?; even you must agree that they are not going to sack a rider when there is no obvious replacement. So how about this as a theory, perhaps having asked to leave the club tried to persuade him to stay before reluctantly saying he could go. In these circumstances berge is presumably withholding his services and that means a ban from racing? maybe he thought he could just leave and join his mate and then got annoyed like most teenagers when they don't get their own way? Whatever theory is correct Glasgow own him and will get a loan fee or transfer fee or did his advisors not mention that either. I don't think it is as simple as Dimitri just asking to leave. We don't know what pressures have been put on him for things to reach the current state of affairs. We also don't know if the club has a replacement lined up, be it immediate or in the near future. If it was all clear cut, why has the club not been granted the normal 28 day facility for a guest? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MD 1,327 Posted July 20, 2015 I don't think it is as simple as Dimitri just asking to leave. We don't know what pressures have been put on him for things to reach the current state of affairs. We also don't know if the club has a replacement lined up, be it immediate or in the near future. If it was all clear cut, why has the club not been granted the normal 28 day facility for a guest? If we had transparency from the pathetic body that governs UK speedway we would know that. Perhaps Berge made a statement to the BSPA saying he was pushed, perhaps there was another reason from Berge we are not aware of. However in the absence of any public communication from the BSPA we are left to speculate. The paranoid would say its just because its Glasgow, others would say it is to protect other PL clubs, we just don't and will never know. Bearing in mind we are already a man down with Howe injured it does seem like we are being completely shafted in reducing the standard 28 day facility to 14 days. As it is we have 6 days left! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SCB 15 Posted July 20, 2015 Or maybe, it is because it's Glasgow. Because Glasgow were already given a chance when allowed to sign Howe despite the fact the rule is written in such a way that it implies it should not have actually been allowed. So the BSPA have only allowed the 14 days they have been known to allow in the past. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MD 1,327 Posted July 20, 2015 Or maybe, it is because it's Glasgow. Because Glasgow were already given a chance when allowed to sign Howe despite the fact the rule is written in such a way that it implies it should not have actually been allowed. So the BSPA have only allowed the 14 days they have been known to allow in the past. Had the decision making on each of those occasions been made public, we would know that, would likely accept it and move on. However it wasn't and won't ever be, leaving us again at the point that the decision made regarding Berge has disadvantaged Glasgow. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SCB 15 Posted July 21, 2015 Had the decision making on each of those occasions been made public, we would know that, would likely accept it and move on. However it wasn't and won't ever be, leaving us again at the point that the decision made regarding Berge has disadvantaged Glasgow. I'm with you pretty much (I just thought I'd try and thrown in a less, "we hate Glasgow" justification*), it would be nice if every time something went to the BSPA MC they had to put the details of the request and a justified solution on their website. We're only talking a sentence or two for each request. Most of them would be pretty boring stuff, "Team X asked to change declared line up. Agreed to change as per rules" but from time to time you'd get "Team Y asked to change declared line up. Turned down as rule x.y.z says..... and the MC agreed that meant that ......" *I think the BSPA hate most teams, it's certainly not a personal thing most of the time. The MC are just inconsistent - bordering on inept at times. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SharpenRake 1,514 Posted July 21, 2015 (edited) Not to keen on twitter and facebook even took me a while to join this forum but have to say Glasgow's page is full of quizzes, info; team line ups - theirs a novel idea!!!!!!! See https://www.facebook.com/glasgowtigersspeedway has to be way forward and seems to be working with more youngsters attending every week!! Edited July 21, 2015 by SharpenRake 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Black Angus 79 Posted July 22, 2015 Or maybe, it is because it's Glasgow. Because Glasgow were already given a chance when allowed to sign Howe despite the fact the rule is written in such a way that it implies it should not have actually been allowed. So the BSPA have only allowed the 14 days they have been known to allow in the past. There have been claims that it is "always 28 days" and thus Glasgow are being picked on in this case. In fact, the rule-book says a facility may be utilised to cover the absence of a missing rider "who is in dispute with his club, provided the circumstances have been accepted by the MC, who will determine the facility and the period of the rider's inactivity" No mention of 7, 14, 28 days or whatever. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Fromafar 10,514 Posted July 22, 2015 There have been claims that it is "always 28 days" and thus Glasgow are being picked on in this case. In fact, the rule-book says a facility may be utilised to cover the absence of a missing rider "who is in dispute with his club, provided the circumstances have been accepted by the MC, who will determine the facility and the period of the rider's inactivity" No mention of 7, 14, 28 days or whatever. That is typical of speedway rulebook it can be interpretated differently by everyone. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MD 1,327 Posted July 22, 2015 That is typical of speedway rulebook it can be interpretated differently by everyone. Time for a re-write to make it more specific. It can be interpreted differently by those applying the rules and that lack of consistency is the major criticism. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
smod 145 Posted July 22, 2015 Pretty clear to me. ...." the MC, who will determine the facility and the period of the rider's inactivity "..... 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lioness 1,488 Posted July 22, 2015 That is typical of speedway rulebook it can be interpretated differently by everyone. My feeling is that a few of them prefer it that way and feel that part of the challenge of being a successful promoter is finding and exploiting the loop holes fans are just expected to lump it. Many promotions and their hangers on still have to wake up to the Internet revolution and realise the days of fans just lumping it because they have no place to air their views are gone 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
